Slippery Bites

"Debates should be more than sound bites"
by Peter Berkowitz and Emily Messner

Peter Berkowitz and Emily Messner published a commentary in Politico, a media organization based out of Washington, DC that purports to be neutral in matters of politics. Their commentary “Debates should be more than sound bites”, criticizes the current debate format and offers an alternate method of holding debates. While their conclusion that the present debate format is lacking in giving the public solid information about the candidates is valid, their argument against the format is not solid, and the alternate method offered has many flaws.

They open the commentary by stating that the Presidential debates are the “most watched broadcasts on TV”, indicating that because of this they are important to the American people. While it is true that the debates have high Nielsen ratings, further research shows that these ratings are only high for cable viewers, not broadcast, indicating that a large section of the American populous is not watching these debates.

The authors continue on, briefly describing the current debate format, interspersing their description with language that clearly indicates their displeasure with the format. While their description may adequately express their opinion about the current system of debating, as well as give an accurate portrayal of the debating platform, it provides no empirical evidence that the system is in fact dysfunctional and no longer serving its purpose. Perhaps they should have included that according to the Museum TV web site the ratings have been steadily falling, a clear indication that Presidential debates are not holding the attention of the American people.

The writers then bridge from criticism to their alternate debating method. They start with a section showing how the American people would like the debates to allow each side more time to express their ideas, deriving this information from a quote from “The Debate Book” by Ron Faucheux, the current media favorite for quotes. This argument is one of the few solid points in the piece. Unfortunately, they follow with an attempt to prove that moderators are not necessary, using the statement that “Many experts believe that media panels are ineffective” without indicating who these experts are.

While pretty on paper, common sense says that this method would fall apart after the first opening argument. In an effort to out sell his or her opponent, each side would be liable to speak longer than allowed, drift off topic, or throw accusations at the other side. This idea fails to take into account human nature, and human’s desire to win, sometimes at costs that go against conventional norms of behavior.

Overall, this commentary, while correct in its summation that Presidential debates have lost effectiveness, fails to provide solid evidence. The alternate plan offered is based off a slippery slope of logic, thus ensuring an inaccurate conclusion. Because of this lack of facts the strength of the argument is lost, an unfortunate end, for something that is truly an important issue.